Where are those scientists who do go out on a limb to present radical ideas, despite peer pressure.

I have often remarked on the difficulty we face in convincing scientists that Bessler's wheel was genuine.  So it's quite surprising to occasionally discover some highly educated scientist with an excellent reputation who has gone out on a limb to profess his or her personal conviction about some subject or other, which, with any other person, we might be tempted to dismiss as arrant nonsense. Despite their seemingly bizarre opinions they are able to publish books expounding their off-the-wall theories.  I, on the other hand, with no celebrity status found it impossible to convince any publishers that my book was worthy of publication, not because it lacked journalistic skills, but because the subject was 'unsuitable', 'unproven', 'of doubtful interest' , 'it's been covered numerous times before' or 'everyone knows it's impossible' - and finally and unarguably, 'you are an unknown author" - Catch-22!

On the other hand sometimes we see that otherwise knowledgeable people have made public statements about the impossibility of something which have turned out to be possible after all - one thinks of the Lord Kelvin who said in 1895, "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" and there are many, many more.  But what of those who publish equally forthright material which many of us might be tempted to dismiss as rubbish but which turn out to be correct?

My own publications have received a good share of scepticim - and I have yet to be vindicated.  But there are some scientists commonly referred to as 'mavericks', because they take a view about something that does not fit in with current theory.  Although I convinced professor Hal Puthoff, sometimes described as a maverick, that Bessler was genuine, he is not prepared to go public with his support until it can be shown how such a device can work within the current laws of physics.  I don't blame him - he suffered plenty of scorn and derision over his 'remote viewing' experiments back in the 1970's.

I suppose there must be other scientists out there, of a 'maverick tendency', who might become equally convinced of Bessler's legitimacy and succumb to the temptation to publicly support research into this field - but none so far.  This particular 'limb' is a stretch too far, even for those who are said to have completely open minds.  But, oddly enough, the general population - those who are not 'professional' scientists - are far more willing to engage in serious conversation about Bessler's wheel. - and don't forget, some of the most important discoveries have been made by amateur inventors.

I have given up hoping to persuade anyone with the 'proper credentials' to support us and go public; its all down to us guys.  Good luck.

“The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass--which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught - but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning.  Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse.  The academic backwoodsmen have been the curse of genius from Aristarchus to Darwin and Freud; they stretch, a solid and hostile phalanx of pedantic mediocrities, across the centuries.” (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers [New York, 1959], p. 427.)  [my underlining]

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Review of Øystein Rustad's two videos on decoding Johann Bessler's Riddles.

I often receive emails telling me that this person or that person has decoded clues, knows how the wheel works, or wants to share what they know if I will only sign an NDA.  I've been aware that Øystein Rustad has been working on Bessler's coded clues for several years but until recently I did not know how much progress he had made.  He allowed me to view two videos he has made which show the decoding of two drawings from Maschinen Tractate and I have to admit I was stunned; I agreed to write a review of the videos, which follows.  I'm only sorry I cannot share their content now but it will be available at some point in the future.

Øystein Rustad kindly invited me to review two videos he has made which explain how he decoded two of Bessler's drawings from his Maschinen Tractate.

My first impression upon seeing the content within the videos is that it was presented in a clear, logical progression and is undeniably correct.  Bessler has, as usual, managed to hide within one piece of work, two and sometimes three parallel messages.  Each message is easily proven once you know how to decode it and this is what Øystein Rustad has achieved.  It has often been suggested that my own speculative attempts to extract some meaning from Bessler's codes relies too heavily on my subjective view of the apparent clues, and that they are in some cases imaginary; in these two videos the evidence that the codes are real and were deliberately placed there by Johann Bessler is beyond doubt.

The messages are partly geometrical with alphanumeric constituent parts cleverly incorporated within the drawings themselves.  The two videos relate to two of the Maschinen Tractate drawings but in these particular cases Øystein assures me that the clues in the videos that was shown to me, do not contain a description of the actual mechanism, although they apparently contain vital information regarding the way it is designed to function.

I understand that Øystein has so far decoded about ten drawings requiring more than an hour of video.  This is because he has found that some drawings require two or more stages of decoding and I assume it would be confusing to try to explain the process in one video segment.  I have not seen these other drawings decoded so I do not know if the process is as interesting as those I have seen already, but I’m assured they have been treated as rigorously as those I have seen.

I would like to say more about the videos but to do so would require that I detail some of the code and I have given my word that I would not give away any information about them. As is his right, Øystein has withheld information about the actual mechanism until such a time as he can produce evidence of its functionality, so I am unable to comment on the usefulness or otherwise, of the information he had managed to extract.

Øystein Rustad has made significant progress in decoding Bessler's extremely cleverly hidden messages and I look forward to when he is ready to reveal all of  it.

That's all for now but watch this space.  I intend to place the review on my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com

JC

Could two people simultaneously discover the solution to Bessler's wheel?

It's not that unlikely. In the 1870s, two inventors, Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell, both independently designed devices that could transmit speech electrically, the telephone. Both men rushed their respective designs to the patent office within hours of each other, Alexander Graham Bell patented his telephone first. Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell entered into a famous legal battle over the invention of the telephone, which Bell won.

I must make a correction to an incorrect fact in the above paragraph, thanks to Jon Hutton's timely message.

"Italy hailed the redress of a historic injustice yesterday after the US Congress recognised an impoverished Florentine immigrant as the inventor of the telephone rather than Alexander Graham Bell.

Historians and Italian-Americans won their battle to persuade Washington to recognise a little-known mechanical genius, Antonio Meucci, as a father of modern communications, 113 years after his death. 

The vote by the House of Representatives prompted joyous claims in Meucci's homeland that finally Bell had been outed as a perfidious Scot who found fortune and fame by stealing another man's work. 

Calling the Italian's career extraordinary and tragic, the resolution said his "teletrofono", demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who had access to Meucci's materials and who took out a patent 16 years later." 

As I said to Jon, let us hope we too can right a wrong from history and place Bessler where he should be, in the hall of famous inventors and not on a list of infamous fraudsters.

Then there was the case of Herbert E. Ives and Frank Gray of Bell Telephone Laboratories who gave a dramatic demonstration of mechanical television on April 7, 1927.  In the same year, 1927, John Logie Baird transmitted a signal over 438 miles of telephone line between London and Glasgow.

Even Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz became embroiled in an argument over who discovered calculus first.Even Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz became embroiled in an argument over who discovered calculus first.

If only one man ever discovered the secret and no one else in the subsequent 300 years has succeeded, why now - and why more than one person?  There is a concept known as multiple discovery.  It suggests that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors. This is the reverse of traditional view - the 'singleton' or 'heroic' theory. Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of these multiple independent discoveryies. Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other. "Sometimes the discoveries are simultaneous or almost so; sometimes a scientist will make a new discovery which, unknown to him, somebody else has made years before."

The various Nobel prizes awarded each year in each field of study comprise not just one winner but two or even three, often because more than one person may have made the same significant discovery at more or less the same time.

Generally one can see how this might happen.  A particular subject is usually chosen by an individual because it has some relevance at the time or place of the researcher.  And if more than one should choose this because the circumstances of choosing are similar, then the subject has probably been discussed in at least both those places and perhaps more widely discussed and possible avenues of progress explored.  It is  but a short step to two or more researchers following up the same clues and reaching the same conclusions independantly of each other.

We here in the Bessler field of research certainly share some of the same attributes mentioned above, I think therefore, there is a real chance of two or more people solving Bessler's wheel at the same moment.  So if I'm one of them, who else it nearly there?  :-)

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Common misconceptions about Bessler's wheel.

There are three comments made in connection with Bessler's wheel which recur regularly; 

Firstly that Bessler's wheel has been proven not to work;

Secondly that his wheel would go against the laws that Sir Isaac Newton promulgated; 

And lastly that even if the wheel is successfully built we will never know whether it was the same solution as Bessler's.

With regard to the first one, Hermann Helmholtz presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiom. "a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible", therebye ruling out any chance of there ever being such a device admitted as a possibility.

He suggested that as no-one had ever successfully built one that worked, such machines must be impossible because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, could only be the Conservation of Energy - his own invention.

Those who don't believe Bessler's wheel could have been genuine are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.  Thanks to Besslerwheel forum for the above concise explanation.

In the case of the second point, that Bessler's wheel would defy the laws that Sir Isaac Newton presented, that is also wrong.  To even suggest that if Bessler's wheel works it will throw out of the window everything that Newton discovered is uttlerly incredible.  It is perfectly obvious that Bessler's wheel would have to comply with the known laws of physics - the alternative is too big a stretch of credulity to accept.  So how would Bessler's wheel fit comfortably among Newton's laws?

I believe that I have the solution to that problem but it is not proven and until I have demonstrated what I believe will be the answer to reconstructing Besslers wheel I cannot say anything about the reason why it won't conflict with any of the laws of physics, Newtonian or later.  As some will know, I have condensed the solution into a single sentence which I include after every post in the form of an encoded anagram.

As for the last point, that we shall never know if our solution is the same as Bessler's, I would strongly dispute that.  If my own research results in a working wheel I shall be able to point to the method I used to develop the right design taken directly from Bessler's clues, both textual and graphic.

I have finally got my workshop back and will begin work on my 'solution' as soon as I practically can. :)

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Gravity is constant and it makes things drop.

Ever since I became convinced that Johann Bessler's machine was genuine, I have been struggling to understand why it is that although such a machine would contradict the laws of physics, obviously his machine did not contradict them..

Instead of trying to understand gravity, I suggest we put the term to one side and instead, look at its effect, and the simple fact that a thing which has mass and is 'heavy', falls or drops, (due to the effect of gravity on it). 

When the weights are pulled downwards by the attraction between the weight and the earth, that attraction is  gravity. Gravity is the effect which appears to give 'weight' to objects of mass. The 'weight' or 'heaviness' of an object is what makes it fall.  

Bessler said that "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity". It seems perfectly logical, therefore, to assume that the weights were supplying the energy which turned the wheel - something all perpetual motionists have instinctively known for hundreds of years.  The movement of the weights was due to the effect of gravity. 

According to wikipedia, "In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction."  Now you may have been told that gravity is not a force - but according to the above well-established principle.....it is!  Anything that falls downwards due to an influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, ...concerning its movement, direction, is a force!

Wikipedia continues, "In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest).."  If that doesn't describe the action of a weight being dropped from my hand then I don't know what does.

Anything which is moved by an external influence, (such as gravity), can have its resulting action modified by another influence. That 'other' influence can, under particular circumstances, also be attributed to gravity.

Bessler said his weights operated in pairs.  So if a weight falls and in doing so, moves another weight, the second one can overbalance a wheel.

Again this is the principle I outlined at my website at www.besslerswheel.com

(The title is taken from my poem at www.free-energy.co.uk/html/my_poem.html )

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's wheel update - alone at last!

My temporary lodgers, my daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren, have finally left to take up residence in their new home and we are slowly bringing our lives back to normal.  They were with us for four months in our home and we are still talking to each other, which is pretty amazing!  I love them to bits but they are so big and so loud! My workshop is now bereft of its two powerful motorbikes, four pedal cycles, two standing toolboxes, metal shelving, a cabinet full of leather motorcycling gear, helmets, gloves, boots which look like something from the the starwars movies propshop, and numerous appurtinances connected with motorcyling.  So now all I have to do is tidy up, rearrange the part of my workshop which was my wheel-building area and get back to work on my own personal wheel project. But first we must finish wallpapering some of the rooms in their new house!  Actually it's all but finished, so I could be in wheel action again next week, fingers crossed.

My wheel is still based on the principle I outlined on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/  The design is aided by the clues I've found in Bessler's drawings.  There are confirmatory clues to support my conclusions but I'm experienced enough in this field of endeavour to know that I may be convincing myself and misreading those, oh-so-subtle clues - but I think not.

Although I can't resume work on the project until I can tidy up and make some room, I have a clear idea of the way ahead and I know exactly what is to be done next. It's so frustrating! I can see the work I've done so far, but there is a cross-trainer in the way and some cabinets and shelves which have to be moved back to their former positions, and until that is accomplished I can only stare at my wheel from a distance.

This hiatus has been useful.  Sometimes I think we get too close to the subject and we can't see the wood for the trees.  We need to see the thing as a whole, to understand the detail; we need to stand back; take a holiday.  So now I think I see things from a better perspective and I see where I maybe went off on a diversion that ended in a cul-de-sac.  Too many metaphors?  Yes I guess so, but you get my meaning.

Anyway back to things-Bessler with my next post.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Was Bessler's sales strategy wrong?

When Johann Bessler 'read that a thing to be prized more than a ton of gold would be the invention of a wheel which could turn of its own accord', it was after having spent a considerable amount of time and effort learning about all the different trades and crafts of his time.  He had travelled through Saxony, into England, Ireland and Scotland before returning to his homeland.

He had dabbled in treasure hunting, watch-making and medicine before comitting himself to the search for a solution to perpetual motion.  It seems to me that he sought wealth and fame from the very beginning but having found the solution to the perpetual motion machine, went about profiting from it in the wrong way.

Thomas Newcomen, who invented the first practicall steam engine  just a couple ot years before Bessler exhibited his first wheel, took a different approach to selling his invention.  He kept the secret within the membership of his family and they went around Europe building and installing their machines.  75 of them were in operation by the time he died.

That Bessler wanted riches is beyond doubt but his problem was the his machine required little more than standard ability to build and run, whereas Newcomen's was a far more complex machine requiring expertise and the training of its operators to function properly.  Even so Newcomen's engine cost about £1200 to buy - a huge cost in those days but compared to Bessler's request for £20,000 - a much better deal.

I think that Bessler could have offered his wheel at a much lower price and built and installed them himself.  If Newcomen, with the help of his family, was able to build and install 75 of his engines, before his death, I'm sure Bessler could have built even more than that and made a good living doing a similar service for people at quarter of  the cost of a Newcomen engine.  

Of course people would have copied them and built their own but I think the celebrity of having the original inventor build and install his machine would have generated enough sales to reach, say, 75 wheels at £250 each before he retired, and he would have earned money close to his desired £20,000.  John Rowley, Master of Mechanics to King George I, sold his Orreries for more than £500 each. Asking princes to commit to buying such an expensive machine as Bessler's was, with no chance to examine it's workings first was too much of a gamble for them.

Bessler was a born salesman, theatrical, passionate. and convincing.  I'm certain he could have succeeded and we would have the descendants of that machine with us today.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.